Post 4/23
If you have read my prior posts, you know that I have accused Mayor Liccardo and the City Council of covering up criminal misconduct by the San Jose City Attorney's Office and the federal courts relative to a lawsuit I filed against the City. Many of the criminal acts relate to public corruption and are felonies. As stunning as these allegations are, they are true. Please read my third post in order to see my specific allegations and evidence to support them. Even though City officials and federal court officials have not denied my allegations, there hasn't been an investigation into this matter at any level, just a cover-up.
The reason I am singling out City Attorney Richard Doyle to be fired is that he has run his office as if it is a criminal enterprise based on my case alone. His judgment in this matter has been one of the worst cases of poor judgment I have ever seen. The evidence of extremely poor judgment does not stop here. As I stated in my open letter that is Post #1, the City's very own propaganda apparatus, the San Jose Mercury News, implied that Mr. Doyle used poor judgment and unethical tactics during the litigation of several high profile cases the City lost, costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
Mr. Doyle was given several opportunities to resolve the issue surrounding my lawsuit. That issue is the denial of my CCW permit, without a hearing, upon my retirement from the police force in 2004. CCW permits are very important to retired police officers because they provide personal protection and possible financial opportunities. Another important reason exists as well. Armed and well trained retired police officers can provide additional protection to their communities in these days of mass shootings and threats from terrorists. The issuance of CCW permits to retiring police officers is about a routine a matter as there is by the SJPD. Protocol is in place to ensure that officers' due process rights are protected. The CA legislature made sure of this by requiring that law enforcement agencies provide an officer a full adversary due process hearing if the agency wants to deny a retiring officer a CCW permit in all cases, except for psychological disability retirements. The hearing requirement is a very important right that is protected by the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause according to the US District Court. The SJPD and City policy provide additional due process protections as well. Yet, Mr. Doyle and several police officials denied my CCW permit several times by failing to follow protocol and rejecting authoritative information that they stated was "crystal clear" I was entitled to a CCW permit. Their acts were flagrantly discriminatory and punitive and was done with the clear intent to inflict emotional distress and cause me financial harm.
More disgusting than City officials' decisions to deny my CCW permit knowing that their decisions were wrong, is the fact that they rejected several opportunities when I reached out, let me correct that, begged them to work with me in resolving this issue. I asked a police official (Captain Tuck Younis) if we could resolve this matter without me having to hire an attorney and turning this into a "federal case." I pointed out that at that time there had not been any cost to me or the City. He said no. When I asked him if there was anything I could do to resolve this issue without having to hire an attorney, he said no. I was left with no choice but to seek legal representation that cost me several hundred dollars.
City officials later acknowledged that their decisions to deny me a CCW permit were wrong. Yet in 2005 and 2006, Mr. Doyle and the City Attorney's Office wasted several opportunities I provided to settle a claim I made for compensation for the financial loss I suffered when I hired an attorney. This was done in spite of the fact that I said I would swallow my pride and agree not to file a lawsuit against the City for emotional distress, punitive damages and other financial loss. Mr. Doyle rejected these offers that would have cost the City as little as $1,000. Rather, he chose a path that resulted in litigation in federal court in 2006. This litigation has cost the City thousands of dollars. My estimate is that the City's legal costs are in the neighborhood of $200,000. However, the worst part of this fiasco is the criminal misconduct by the City Attorney's Office and the federal courts relative to my lawsuit and the cover-up by Mayor Liccardo, the City Council and other entities of the City. As I stated in one of my prior posts, the decisions of the courts relative to my lawsuit are void judgments; and I will not be voluntarily bound by these void judgments that are tainted by fraud. My case is now pending action by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Again, here is my message to Mayor Liccardo and the City Council: FIRE CITY ATTORNEY RICHARD DOYLE and initiate an investigation into this matter immediately per City policy. If not, it is only going to get worse. City leaders should keep in mind that Mr. Doyle could have gotten the City out of this mess for as little as $1,000, as opposed to, the estimated $200,000 and counting the City has spent on litigation. For additional details, please access the following link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624131267713226/
No comments:
Post a Comment